On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:59 PM Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:33 AM Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:04 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/17/23 18:31, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 7:24 AM <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > > > >> When the MClientSnap reqeust's op is not CEPH_SNAP_OP_SPLIT the > > > >> request may still contain a list of 'split_realms', and we need > > > >> to skip it anyway. Or it will be parsed as a corrupt snaptrace. > > > >> > > > >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >> Cc: Frank Schilder <frans@xxxxxx> > > > >> Reported-by: Frank Schilder <frans@xxxxxx> > > > >> URL: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/61200 > > > >> Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> --- > > > >> fs/ceph/snap.c | 3 +++ > > > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/fs/ceph/snap.c b/fs/ceph/snap.c > > > >> index 0e59e95a96d9..d95dfe16b624 100644 > > > >> --- a/fs/ceph/snap.c > > > >> +++ b/fs/ceph/snap.c > > > >> @@ -1114,6 +1114,9 @@ void ceph_handle_snap(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc, > > > >> continue; > > > >> adjust_snap_realm_parent(mdsc, child, realm->ino); > > > >> } > > > >> + } else { > > > >> + p += sizeof(u64) * num_split_inos; > > > >> + p += sizeof(u64) * num_split_realms; > > > >> } > > > >> > > > >> /* > > > >> -- > > > >> 2.40.1 > > > >> > > > > Hi Xiubo, > > > > > > > > This code appears to be very old -- it goes back to the initial commit > > > > 963b61eb041e ("ceph: snapshot management") in 2009. Do you have an > > > > explanation for why this popped up only now? > > > > > > As I remembered we hit this before in one cu BZ last year, but I > > > couldn't remember exactly which one. But I am not sure whether @Jeff > > > saw this before I joint ceph team. > > > > > > > > > > Has MDS always been including split_inos and split_realms arrays in > > > > !CEPH_SNAP_OP_SPLIT case or is this a recent change? If it's a recent > > > > change, I'd argue that this needs to be addressed on the MDS side. > > > > > > While in MDS side for the _UPDATE op it won't send the 'split_realm' > > > list just before the commit in 2017: > > > > > > commit 93e7267757508520dfc22cff1ab20558bd4a44d4 > > > Author: Yan, Zheng <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Fri Jul 21 21:40:46 2017 +0800 > > > > > > mds: send snap related messages centrally during mds recovery > > > > > > sending CEPH_SNAP_OP_SPLIT and CEPH_SNAP_OP_UPDATE messages to > > > clients centrally in MDCache::open_snaprealms() > > > > > > Signed-off-by: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Before this commit it will only send the 'split_realm' list for the > > > _SPLIT op. > > > > It sounds like we have the culprit. This should be treated as > > a regression and fixed on the MDS side. I don't see a justification > > for putting useless data on the wire. > > I don't really understand this viewpoint. We can treat it as an MDS > regression if we want, but it's a six-year-old patch so this is in > nearly every version of server code anybody's running. Why wouldn't we > fix it on both sides? Well, if I didn't speak up chances are we wouldn't have identified the regression in the MDS at all. People seem to have this perception that the client is somehow "easier" to fix, assume that the server is always doing the right thing and default to patching the client. I'm just trying to push back on that. In this particular case, after understanding the scope of the issue _and_ getting a committal for the MDS side fix, I approved taking the kernel client patch in an earlier reply. > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:07 AM Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > And if the split_realm number equals to sizeof(ceph_mds_snap_realm) + > > extra snap buffer size by coincidence, the above 'corrupted' snaptrace > > will be parsed by kclient too and kclient won't give any warning, but it > > will corrupted the snaprealm and capsnap info in kclient. > > I'm a bit confused about this patch, but I also don't follow the > kernel client code much so please forgive my ignorance. The change > you've made is still only invoked inside of the CEPH_SNAP_OP_SPLIT > case, so clearly the kclient *mostly* does the right thing when these No, it's invoked outside: it introduces a "op != CEPH_SNAP_OP_SPLIT" branch. Thanks, Ilya
